Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Post WWII Insurgency (Vanity)

Posted on 08/10/2005 7:53:27 AM PDT by God luvs America

Does anyone have links to stories/articles about Japan "insurgents" shooting or killing American GI's after VJ-Day in 1945?? They were posted a while back yet I cannot find them...thanks and sorry for the intrusion.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Miscellaneous; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 08/10/2005 7:53:28 AM PDT by God luvs America
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: God luvs America
You may also want to check out the post-WWII German "Werewolf" guerrillas. IIRC, it took 5 years to catch them all.
2 posted on 08/10/2005 7:55:37 AM PDT by Slings and Arrows ("MON CANARD EST EN FEU!!" -- http://www.schlockmercenary.com/d/20050620.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: God luvs America

This is about post Germany but perhaps there is something on Japan as well.


http://www.jessicaswell.com/MT/archives/000872.html

http://www.jessicaswell.com/


3 posted on 08/10/2005 7:57:23 AM PDT by Eagles Talon IV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: God luvs America

I wrote to the Library of Congress some time ago about how Hitler supporters continued killing our soldiers at the end of WWII. They didn't have the number of soldiers killed by the insurgency, but on the History Channel both my husband and I thought it numbered in the thousands.

Their favorite method was to string barbed wire across the road which beheaded soldiers as they drove by. Then our soldiers put wooden crosses on the front of jeeps and other methods were employed.


4 posted on 08/10/2005 7:58:49 AM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Slings and Arrows

Weren't they called Wolverines?


5 posted on 08/10/2005 7:59:56 AM PDT by Phantom Lord (Fall on to your knees for the Phantom Lord)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: God luvs America

The Discover Channel had a great hour special about 10 months ago on the Post WWII German Insurgency. What I took from it was the following:

1) Reporting on insurgent activity was prohibited, and
2) Both insurgents and those cooperating with insurgents were quickly subject to field court-martial and executed if found guilty.


6 posted on 08/10/2005 8:01:58 AM PDT by elfman2 (This space is intentionally left blank)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elfman2

Thanks to all....I'm also looking for sniper attacks, etc in Japan.


7 posted on 08/10/2005 8:04:16 AM PDT by God luvs America (When the silent majority speaks the earth trembles!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord

I thought the Wolverines were the guerrillas in "Red Dawn." :^)

Seriesly, I'm pretty sure they were called Werewolves. I could be wrong, but I'm sure.


8 posted on 08/10/2005 8:05:21 AM PDT by Slings and Arrows ("MON CANARD EST EN FEU!!" -- http://www.schlockmercenary.com/d/20050620.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Slings and Arrows

Thanks, I needed a new tagline


9 posted on 08/10/2005 8:09:43 AM PDT by elfman2 (Seriously. I could be wrong, but I'm sure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Eagles Talon IV

Fascinating.


10 posted on 08/10/2005 8:11:12 AM PDT by Alexander Rubin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: elfman2

I'm flattered. May the wily moose never bite your sister's cheese.


11 posted on 08/10/2005 8:19:35 AM PDT by Slings and Arrows ("MON CANARD EST EN FEU!!" -- http://www.schlockmercenary.com/d/20050620.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Peach

Thousands? Perhaps a couple of dozen at most, and most of these were by criminal gangs. The pro-Iraq war crowd was touting the werewolf insurgency a few years ago but dropped it after it was proved that there was "no there, there." There was no post-war "insurgency" in Germany.


12 posted on 08/10/2005 8:29:49 AM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord

No it was werewolves and they had virtually no impact after World War II.


13 posted on 08/10/2005 8:31:12 AM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright

You're still around despite being given links way back when that proved you so wrong? LOL


14 posted on 08/10/2005 8:32:04 AM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: God luvs America

I've seen sites quote from an Army document called "Statistical and Accounting Branch of the Office of the Adjutant General's Final Report from 1947" which said that in the six months following the German surrender, June through December 1945, total U.S. Army deaths due to combat were 42 - 32 KIA, 8 died of wounds, 2 missing and presumed dead. I've never seen any documents that support the claims that hundreds or thousands were killed. Given the size of the occupation forces I'm sure that there were probably several hundred non-combat related casualties through training accidents, traffic accidents and the like and that could be where the figure comes from. Supposedly the casualties in Japan were even less.


15 posted on 08/10/2005 8:36:44 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright
No it was werewolves and they had virtually no impact after World War II.

Considering that their activities were after the war your statement is correct.

16 posted on 08/10/2005 8:38:46 AM PDT by Mike Darancette (Mesocons for Rice '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: God luvs America

there are stil japanese hold outs that the find from time to time in south east asia. most recent was a few months ago.


17 posted on 08/10/2005 8:42:04 AM PDT by minus_273
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord

werewolves was the name of the insurgency in germany


18 posted on 08/10/2005 8:42:41 AM PDT by minus_273
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright

yeah? we bombed the nuremberg trials?


19 posted on 08/10/2005 8:43:32 AM PDT by minus_273
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Peach
Peach:

I gotta apologize. I'm getting very old and forgetful. Could you kindly give me the link again that proves that more than 100 Americans died during the post-war period at the hands of the German "insurgency?"

Thanks for your patience and sorry to put you to all the trouble yet again. I really look forward to reading the document!!!

Cheers,

AWW

20 posted on 08/10/2005 8:44:37 AM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Slings and Arrows

A better analogy would be the Soviet Blockade of West Berlin three years after the end of the War. The insurgents in Iraq have little to do with the previous regime, they are outsiders who want to take control. Just as the Soviets were an outsider who wanted to control West Berlin. This is what makes occupations tricky, and why you can't just walk away when the original enemy is defeated. New enemies can appear out of the wordwook.


21 posted on 08/10/2005 8:45:40 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mike Darancette
Check this

http://tinyurl.com/8mywj

22 posted on 08/10/2005 8:50:21 AM PDT by Wolverine (A Concerned Citizen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Wolverine

The title of the "discuss anything" article in your url is misleading. It did not give a single "post-war" example of werewolf killings.


23 posted on 08/10/2005 8:54:49 AM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Wolverine

The title of the "discuss anything" article in your url is misleading. It did not give a single "post-war" example of werewolf killings.


24 posted on 08/10/2005 8:55:02 AM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright

You obviously failed to note the subject of the search: german werewolf insurgency


25 posted on 08/10/2005 9:02:10 AM PDT by Wolverine (A Concerned Citizen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: God luvs America

The degree of post World War II insurgents would be accurately described as somewhere between nonexistant and inconsequential, closer to the former.


26 posted on 08/10/2005 9:02:57 AM PDT by ValenB4 ("Every system is perfectly designed to get the results it gets." - Isaac Asimov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright

Well I'm getting older too Willard so you'll have to forgive me if I'm wrong.

But I seem to recall you quite clearly being on threads when this was discussed at least 1.5 years ago and links were provided you at that time and you continued to not believe the information provided you.

So you'll have to forgive me if I don't go searching threads and historical links again in an effort to convince you.

Cheers!


27 posted on 08/10/2005 9:05:07 AM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Peach
But I seem to recall you quite clearly being on threads when this was discussed at least 1.5 years ago and links were provided you at that time and you continued to not believe the information provided you.

So you'll have to forgive me if I don't go searching threads and historical links again in an effort to convince you.

Peach:

Don't bother to search, now. You have done more than enough. I think everyone reading your post can now easily perspective on the Werewolf insurgency. Thanks for your most enlightening response! It is rare that discussions on Freerepublic produce such a clear resolution.

Cheers,

AWW

28 posted on 08/10/2005 9:11:05 AM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Peach

That's "see your perspective."


29 posted on 08/10/2005 9:11:52 AM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright

Good reply. There was no significant German insurgency like in Iraq. We crushed what there was of it with field executions and information blackouts.

As I recall, our practice in WWII of actually “winning a war and defeating the enemy’s will to fight” before rebuilding their country enabled a no-nonsense policy of dealing with insurgents. Sure, we may have actually taken more casualties in the long run by immediately going into each Iraqi village with 3 times the troops and establishing order and martial law, but this insurgency would not likely have occurred.

I don’t fault the administration for trying. I only fault those who don’t learn from this mistake.


30 posted on 08/10/2005 9:16:26 AM PDT by elfman2 (Seriously. I could be wrong, but I'm sure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright

The History of the National Socialist Guerrilla Movement, 1944-1946
by Perry Biddiscombe
University of Toronto Press, 1998
455 Pages, US$ 39.95
ISBN: 0-8020-0862-3

Joseph Goebbels, Minister of Propaganda and Gauleiter of Berlin, showed no signs of slacking in the months before he killed himself in Hitler's bunker on May 1, 1945. According to the selections from his diary edited by Hugh Trevor-Roper and published as "Final Entries 1945," he not only attended to his ordinary duties regarding national editorial policy and the defense of the city, but also found time to do things like review the new tax code and to arrange for an annoying colleague to be drafted. Of all these activities, however, perhaps the most surreal was his enthusiastic support for the "Werwolf" movement.

Goebbels spoke of the Werwolf almost as if it were an electoral campaign. Despite the other things he had on his mind, he exerted himself to create a new Werwolf radio station, and even tried to found a newspaper. (The radio station actually operated for a few weeks.) Propaganda for and about the Werwolf were among the last products of the regime. In retrospect, some commentators have tended to dismiss the Werwolf as something of a Nazi hoax, one whose primary effect was to induce the western Allies to invade Germany on a broad front, rather than go directly for Berlin. Still, I for one have sometimes wondered just what this "Werwolf" effort was, and how seriously the Nazis took it.

Perry Biddiscombe, an assistant professor of history at the University of Victoria, answers in "Werwolf!" all the questions you are likely to have about the movement, and in a very readable form. (Don't be intimidated by the apparent size of the book, by the way: the text ends at page 285, followed by notes and appendices.) "Werwolf!" provides valuable insights into the "polyarchic" nature of the Nazi regime, both in its salad days and in its dissolution, as well as a general overview of the last few months of the war in Europe. Finally, though the author does not address this matter, the book may provide some useful ideas for counterfactual speculation about the possible evolution of National Socialist society, had it survived the war.

The term "Werwolf" is the equivalent of the English "werewolf," meaning "man-wolf" or "lycanthrope." There is, however, another term, "Wehrwolf," which is pronounced about the same as "Werwolf," but which means "defense wolf." "Wehrwolf" actually has a long association with irregular warfare in Germany. A famous novel by that title, written by one Hermann Loens and published in 1910, was a romantic treatment of peasant guerrillas in northern Germany during the 17th century. Though this novel was in fact promoted by the Nazi government, particularly the Hitler Youth, the spelling "Werwolf" was favored when the Germans began planning for partisan warfare, because the Nazis had had a competitor on the Right in the 1920s called the "Wehrwolf Bund." Besides, "Werwolf" sounded more feral.

As with so much else the Nazi government did, the Werwolf initiative was something of a pillow fight, with different actors competing for control of Werwolf organizations and with different ideas for what the Werwolf was supposed to do. The original concept was clear enough, however.

"Clausewitzian partisans" are part of orthodox military doctrine. They are militia who operate behind the lines in territory occupied by the enemy. Their function is to cut supply lines and generally cause confusion, but their operation presupposes the continued existence of a national government and a conventional army. The Germans had experience fielding irregular forces of this nature, both against Napoleon and in the form of the independent "Freikorps" units that operated in eastern Germany during the chaotic period just after the First World War. The Germans started thinking about them again as soon as the situation on the Russian front began to deteriorate, and in fact anti-Communist partisans did the Red Army appreciable damage. It was only in the last half of 1944, however, that the Germans began to focus on the possibility that the Allies might have to be resisted within Germany itself.

This was a job that no major player in the German government or the military wanted to be associated with until the last moment. Thinking about the penetration of Germany, even the extended Germany of Hitler's annexations, implied a fair amount of defeatism. Additionally, the military was not keen on sharing its dwindling resources for training and material with civilian stay-behind groups. In principle, the Werwolf was commanded by SS Chief Heinrich Himmler, through a back channel consisting of local chiefs of police. These middle-aged men tended to regard partisan activity as somewhat disreputable, and in any case had no idea how to go about it. Far more dynamic, and only nominally under SS command, was the Werwolf program operated by the Hitler Youth. The story of the Werwolf proper, in fact, is largely a cautionary tale about what happens when you give teenagers a license to kill.

Despite all obstacles, training programs were improvised for youths and adults, though the courses sometimes lasted just days. Underground bunkers were prepared in isolated areas, from which the Werwolf were supposed to emerge to strike terror into the enemy. Werwolf was supposed to mesh into the larger project of establishing an "Alpine Redoubt," a base in Austria and mountainous southern Germany to which conventional forces might retreat. Certainly the major Werwolf training bases were located in that area. The last-minute attempt to build underground facilities in the Alps were too little, too late, and the armies ordered to go there never arrived, for the most part. In the final few days, Hitler decided to stay in Berlin, rather than go south and try to organize the Redoubt from Berchtesgaden. Still, it was not quite just a propaganda ploy.

What did the Werwolf do? They sniped. They mined roads. They poured sand into the gas tanks of jeeps. (Sugar was in short supply, no doubt.) They were especially feared for the "decapitation wires" they strung across roads. They poisoned food stocks and liquor. (The Russians had the biggest problem with this.) They committed arson, though perhaps less than they are credited with: every unexplained fire or explosion associated with a military installation tended to be blamed on the Werwolf. These activities slackened off within a few months of the capitulation on May 7, though incidents were reported as late as 1947.

The problem with assessing the extent of Werwolf activity is that not only official Werwolf personnel committed partisan acts. Much of the regular German fighting forces disarticulated into isolated units that sometimes kept fighting, even after the high command surrendered.. In the east, units that had been bypassed by the Red Army tried to fight their way west, so they could surrender to the Anglo-Americans. In the west, the final "strategy" of the high command was to stop even trying to halt the Allied armored penetrations of Germany, but to hit these units from behind and cut off their supplies. Perhaps the most harrowing accounts in the book are those relating to the expulsion of the ethnic German populations from the Sudetenland and the areas annexed by Poland. The latter theater in particular seems to have been the only point in the European war in which a civilian population was keen about a "scorched earth" strategy.

Very little Werwolf activity was directed with an eye toward political survival after the complete occupation of Germany. The Nazi leadership could not bring themselves to think about the matter. Certainly Himmler could not. In the last days before his own suicide, he tried to close the Werwolf down, the better to curry favor with the western Allies. Still, elements of the movement did make some plans for after the war. The Hitler Youth branch devised a political platform for a peaceful, postwar, Werwolf political organization. They also took steps toward ensuring financing for these efforts. In the last days of the war, forward-looking Nazis scurried about Germany with funds taken from the Party or the national treasury, buying up businesses "at fire-sale prices," as Biddiscombe dryly puts it. These enterprises prospered slightly in the months following the end of the fighting, but were wrapped up by the occupation authorities by the end of 1945.

This brings us to the role of the Nazi Party in the Werwolf movement. An aspect of the Third Reich on which Biddiscombe lays great stress is the surprisingly derelict state of the Party itself. When the Party was new, it was in many ways a youth movement, or perhaps a brilliant propaganda machine that mobilized a youth movement. Even before the war began, however, it had become little more than a patronage organization, notable mostly for its corruption. The old guard, who had come to power with Hitler, had no new ideas themselves and stubbornly refused to make way for new blood. The Gauleiter, or district leaders, were not an elite, and the organizations they commanded did not attract persons of the first quality.

This situation particularly frustrated the "old fighters" like Goebbels and Robert Ley, the labor chief, and Martin Bormann, Hitler's party secretary. Though they continued to have considerable influence on policy because of their strong personal relationships with Hitler, nevertheless they had long been losing institutional power as the Party was eclipsed by the SS. That organization could make some claim to being an elite. At the very least, it was still more feared than despised. Thus, in the closing months of the regime, some of the Party leaders saw the Werwolf as an opportunity to wrest power back from the Reich's decaying institutions.

Goebbels especially grasped the possibility that guerrilla war could be a political process as well as a military strategy. It was largely through his influence that the Werwolf assumed something of the aspect of a terrorist organization. Where it could, it tried to prevent individuals and communities from surrendering, and it assassinated civil officials who cooperated with the Allies. Few Germans welcomed these activities, but something else that Goebbels grasped was that terror might serve where popularity was absent. By his estimate, only 10% to 15% of the German population were potential supporters for a truly revolutionary movement. His goal was to use the Werwolf to activate that potential. With the help of the radical elite, the occupiers could be provoked into savage reprisals that would win over the mass of the people to Neo-Nazism, a term that came into use in April 1945.

Bizarre as it may seem, Goebbels saw the collapse of the Reich as the opportunity to put through a social revolution, particularly a social revolution manned by radicalized youth. Always on the left-wing of the Party, Goebbels felt that Hitler had been mislead by the Junkers and the traditional military into bourgeois policies that had corrupted the whole movement. With Germany's cities in ruins and its institutions no longer functioning, the possibility had arisen to start again from scratch. Biddiscombe notes that Hermann Rauschning , a former Nazi official who defected to the West before the war, called Nazism a "revolution of nihilism." Biddiscombe suggests that the radical wing of the Party, freed by defeat from the responsibility for actual government and the constraints of a conventional war, reverted in the final days to the nihilistic essence of Nazism.

In some ways, Goebbels' policy resembled what Mao Zedong did in China. Even the plans for the Alpine Redoubt are reminiscent of the Long March to the base at Yennan. Before the Long March, the Chinese Communist Party was a fairly conventional Stalinist organization. It presupposed the facilities of civilization for its operation. When it descended from the mountains after the war with Japan ended, however, the Communist Party was something like a new society in itself. Goebbels hoped for something similar in Europe, counting on the sudden outbreak of a war between the western and eastern Allies to provide the strategic breathing room for a renewed regime to coalesce. When no such war broke out, and the Alpine Redoubt proved to be just another Nazi pipe dream, the Werwolf simply evaporated.

While perhaps one should not press the Chinese comparison too far, still it is probably significant that the most radical manifestations of Chinese Communism appeared a good 15 or 20 years after the Party came to power. They appeared in time of peace, as old party hands tried to retake control from the conventional organs of government. If the Nazi state had won its war with the Soviet Union and fended off invasion from the West, might something similar have happened? The early Nazi enthusiasm for socialism and social solidarity had become largely rhetorical by 1939, but the ideas always remained, ready to the hand of bold Party officials who might someday find the arrogance of the SS too threatening.

Perhaps the Werwolf is the dim reflection in our world of another future. In that world, the 1960s see Brown Guards take over the streets of Germania, the new Nazi capital. Egged on by Old Fighters behind the scenes, they demand that the aristocrats of the SS get off their high horses and learn from the Volk. Ancient universities are closed down or turned into schools of indoctrination. Elderly scholars are sent to country districts to raise pigs. Gullible journalists arrive from abroad, and send home admiring articles about how the Germans must be understood on their own terms.

Any scenario in which the Third Reich lasts longer than it did is unpleasant to think about. In this one, however, there is at least a built-in consolation. The Nazi empire, held together by coercion, would probably have blown up as soon as the effectiveness of its military was degraded by revolutionary fervor."

http://pages.prodigy.net/aesir/wer.htm


31 posted on 08/10/2005 9:21:11 AM PDT by Sam Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright

Werwolf
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Werwolf was a Nazi plan at the end of World War II for a force which would aid the Wehrmacht by means of guerilla attacks against the Allies in the Allied-occupied regions of Germany. The word "Werwolf" is the German cognate of werewolf, in the sense of lycanthropy; it is also a pun on Wehrwolf, which means "military wolf". "Werwolf" was the favored name of the movement, although "Wehrwolf" was also sometimes used.

The original plan for Werwolf was to act as a guerilla force to harry the logistic trains of Allied armies preparing to assault the Nazis' "Alpine National Redoubt". It originally had about 5,000 members recruited from the SS and Hitler Youth, and specially trained in guerilla tactics. It even went so far as to establish front companies to ensure continued funding after occupation (all were discovered and shut down within eight months). However as it became increasingly clear that the Alpine Redoubt was yet another grandiose delusion, Werwolf was converted first into a terrorist organisation, and then largely dismantled by Heinrich Himmler and Wilhelm Keitel in the last few weeks of the war. On March 23, 1945, Adolf Hitler gave a speech, known as the "Werwolf speech", in which he urged every German to fight to the death. The partial dismantling of the organised Werwolf, combined with the effects of the "Werwolf" speech caused considerable confusion about which subsequent attacks were actual Werwolf attacks, as against solo acts by fanatical Nazis or small groups of SS.

Typical Werwolf tactics included sniping attacks, arson, sabotage, and assassination although in Poland they also carried out massacres of civilians, and a few substantial attacks against Soviet troops. Their most costly single attack in the western zones of occupation was a bombing which killed 44 persons. Their most prominent victims were Dr. Franz Oppenhoff (the new anti-Nazi mayor of Aachen and most prominent democratic politician left in Germany), Major John Poston (Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery's liaison officer) and possibly General Berzarin (Soviet commandant of Berlin). (Their radio propaganda also claimed the assassination of General Maurice Rose, the most senior Jewish US officer, though it is more likely his killers were ordinary soldiers who had no idea who he was).

One often overlooked aspect of Werwolf is that the Hitler Youth component was also responsible for developing a new political youth movement which was intended to outlast the war, and which was called "neo-Nazism". Some current German neo-Nazi groups refer to themselves as Werwolf or Wehrwolf.

Recently the history of Werwolf has been employed in arguments about the American-led occupation of Iraq [1] [2] [3]. Some aspects of Werwolf which are relevant to this discussion are: (1) Werwolf was principally a war stratagem of the Nazi government. It withered by the month after German surrender; the German people were tired of war. (2) As a war effort, Werwolf was truncated by the stratagem of accepting Western defeat to avoid defeat against the Russians. (3) Werwolf had a mythological reputation which was deliberately fostered by Nazi propaganda. Its psychological presence exceeded confirmed incidents, especially after surrender. (4) The Allied powers devoted massive resources to the pacification and reconstruction of Germany, partly for fear of insurgency. (5) Nonetheless, Werwolf was far weaker than many other historically significant guerrilla insurgencies, e.g., those in Vietnam and Iraq."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werwolf


32 posted on 08/10/2005 9:24:46 AM PDT by Sam Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: God luvs America
A better analogy -- and with more relevant lessons -- to the current situation would be the Phillippines occupation following the Span-American war. Domestic politics were split just as they are today, with both candidates for President in 1900 running in support of the previous war but deeply split over how to handle "the peace." This cartoon is a primer for ya:


"Take your choice--Do you want a man who, having raised the stars and stripes on our new possessions, ... or a man who will cut down "Old Glory"?
That's Republican McKinley raising the flag, and Dim W.J. Bryan chopping at the mast. A political cartoon, but accurate nonetheless. You will find all kinds of parallels between these conflicts, especially as regards muslim insurgency, domestic U.S. backbiting, and a long, steady and eventually successful political process in the occupied land.
33 posted on 08/10/2005 9:41:36 AM PDT by nicollo (All economics are politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nicollo

This comparison, often made by Max Boot, doesn't hold up. The Phillipine insurgency was different in an important way from the Iraq insurgency. Most notably, the Phillipine insurgents hardly had any guns and were generally armed with knives and machetes. They had disarmed themselves shortly before the U.S. occupation began. Iraq, by contrast, is awash in guns. Despite the lack of guns by the insurgents in the Phillipines, over 2,000 American troops died.


34 posted on 08/10/2005 11:57:52 AM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Sam Hill
Good article. Please note that the last Werewolf attack mentioned was in March 1945 (that's before the German surrender.
35 posted on 08/10/2005 11:59:40 AM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: elfman2

There was no substantial will to fight in Germany in 1945, nor were there the same ethnic divisions and the religious hatreds were more muted. Also, Germany, unlike Iraq, had recent experience with democracy and free markets. These are other significant differences.


36 posted on 08/10/2005 12:01:39 PM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright

As with all historical parallels, there is no direct link to be made; one has to go with the best available. In terms of domestic U.S. politics, the local insurgency (not the methods, but its type and motives), the war that led to it, and the U.S. goals for the occupied land, the Phillippines occupation offers the best relation to what's going on now, far better than what happened post-WWII in Germany or Japan.


37 posted on 08/10/2005 1:14:24 PM PDT by nicollo (All economics are politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: nicollo
You are right that there are some interesting parallels in domestic politics though in 1900 far more conservatives were leading figures in the anti-imperialist movement. Among them were Grover Cleveland, William Graham Sumner, J. Sterling Morton (all were officers in the Anti-Imperialist League). Some conservatives oppose the Iraq war, such as Ron Paul, but far fewer than in 1900. By contrast, the most ardent imperialists in 1900 were often progressives (today's RINO's) such as Teddy Roosevelt and Albert Thayer Mahan.

As far as the actual military situation on the ground, I think that Vietnam parallel (hackneyed as it is) works better. Most notably, as I said, the insurgences in both Iraq and Vietnam were awash in guns in contrast to the Phillipine insurgents.

38 posted on 08/10/2005 1:36:58 PM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: nicollo
You are right that there are some interesting parallels in domestic politics though in 1900 far more conservatives were leading figures in the anti-imperialist movement. Among them were Grover Cleveland, William Graham Sumner, J. Sterling Morton (all were officers in the Anti-Imperialist League). Some conservatives oppose the Iraq war, such as Ron Paul, but far fewer than in 1900. By contrast, the most ardent imperialists in 1900 were often progressives (today's RINO's) such as Teddy Roosevelt and Albert Thayer Mahan.

As far as the actual military situation on the ground, I think that Vietnam parallel (hackneyed as it is) works better. Most notably, as I said, the insurgences in both Iraq and Vietnam were awash in guns in contrast to the Phillipine insurgents.

39 posted on 08/10/2005 1:37:13 PM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright
In terms of tactics, Vietnam works, as you say. In politics, and geo-politics, the Philippines works better, I maintain.

1890s conservatives did oppose the Span-American war, but few continued to oppose it once it happened. Those that did, like House Speaker Thomas B. Reed lost their support. Others, like Root, Hay, or McKinley himself, saw it as unfortunate, inevitable and well worth the effort to win it properly. As for TR, his role in the war, especially its onset, has been hugely exaggerated, and not just by himself (lol!).

The fiercest opposition to the Span-Am war came in its aftermath (just as today) from the Bryanites during the 1900 election and onward. It carried on into the Wilson administration, in which Bryan was the 1st Sec State. He near managed to unwind all the good work done in the Philippines and Cuba through then.

Conservatives may have disagreed, but they didn't work against it.
40 posted on 08/10/2005 2:14:38 PM PDT by nicollo (All economics are politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: nicollo
T.R.'s role was exaggerated in certain ways. For example,. McKinley was fully aware of his order to attack the Spanish fleet and free to countermand that order (but didn't). McKinley knew perfectly well what he was doing. Still, T.R. was a very important cheerleader for both the war and crushing the insurgency (which occured when he was prez).

Bryan's role in anti-imperialism is exaggerated. The Democrats/Populists in 1896 took a pretty hard line for a "free Cuba" in 1896 (much to the dismay of the Clevelandite anti-imperialists). Bryan supported the Spanish American War, and much to the dismay of the Anti-Imperialist League and supported Treaty of Paris ending the war. That treaty, of course, annexed the Phillipines and the vote was on it was razor thin.

It is true that Bryan opposed "imperialism" in the 1900 election but the anti-imperialist leaders (many of whom were goldbugs) never really trusted him, though most reluctntly voted for him or stayed home. By the end of the campaign, he was pushing free silver again and downplaying anti-imperialism.

I am sure that you agree terms like "liberal" and "conservative" (at least in modern terms) had little meaning in 1900. Bryan was certainly not a liberal on social issues, such as religion or states rights and T.R. was not a conservative on economic issues. Cleveland, on the other hand, is best decribed as a classical liberal Jeffersonian. People like Reed were Hamiltonian in their economic views.

Having said this, the leadership of the Anti-Imperialist League (both before and 1900) were made up of Clevelandite classical liberals who were pro-gold standard, pro-free trade, and anti-big government. They included the Edward Atkinson (a free market fan of Bastiat), J. Sterling Morton, another friend of the gold standard and former Secretary of Agricutlure, William Graham Sumner (the Milton Friedman of his day), Moorfield Storey (a rapid friend of the gold standard and civil rights), and many others. The Bryanites had virtually no role in the top leadership of the League.

41 posted on 08/10/2005 2:47:18 PM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright
That's a nice description you make of "conservatives" and "liberals" from that period. The word "conservative" referred to those who supported the status quo, which was Lincoln Republicanism and all its economic policies, especially protectionism and other pro-business angles. It was more current than the other labels of "liberal" and "progressive" (which didn't appear fully until 1909/1910). And thanks for the info on the Anti-Imperialist League.

No doubt Bryan supported the war at its onset: anyone who wanted to remain politically viable did, especially McKinley who otherwise personally opposed it. Bryan volunteered for service in the war immediately. It was afterward that he turned against its aftermath in his run for office in 1900, which was my reference. Like our boy Kerry, he guessed wrongly that it would get him into office.

Now, a couple corrections:

McKinley was fully aware of [TR's] order to attack the Spanish fleet...
This is precisely what has been so exaggerated. TR wrote off some orders to move -- not to attack -- the fleet toward the Phillipines. The order was already anticipated by Dewey and was of no consequence. TR wrote of it as the opening drama of the war itself.
Still, T.R. was a very important cheerleader for both the war and crushing the insurgency (which occured when he was prez)
The insurgency was contained by the time TR took office and the political direction was well set under the American governor there, Taft, who was appointed by McKinley.

Thanks for your replies.

42 posted on 08/10/2005 3:04:57 PM PDT by nicollo (All economics are politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright
"There was no substantial will to fight in Germany in 1945. "

That’s right. It took us 4 years to defeat it, longer in Iraq.

" nor were there the same ethnic divisions and the religious hatreds were more muted. "

Really? Think about that again;^)

43 posted on 08/10/2005 4:14:46 PM PDT by elfman2 (Seriously. I could be wrong, but I'm sure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright; nicollo

Furthermore, there were about 200,000 killed in putting down the Philippine insurrection. With today's international media where everything is either instantaneous or recent, there's no way public opinion would accept something like that. Max Boot's an idiot.


44 posted on 08/10/2005 6:55:15 PM PDT by ValenB4 ("Every system is perfectly designed to get the results it gets." - Isaac Asimov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: ValenB4

I've seen estimates well above your 200K. And I dunno jack about Max Boot.

That said, the Phillipines may offer little tactical parallel but it's a strategic lesson far above WWII or Vietnam as for what's happening now, especially as regards the home front.

Think.


45 posted on 08/10/2005 6:59:18 PM PDT by nicollo (All economics are politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: nicollo

I agree. To the liberals everything is Vietnam. To the neocons everything is WW2. They're both wrong. This is a totally unique screw up.


46 posted on 08/10/2005 7:01:24 PM PDT by ValenB4 ("Every system is perfectly designed to get the results it gets." - Isaac Asimov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson